EXTRA NOTE: When reporting errors on the quirk list, please bear in mind per p. 89 that the list only captures quirks that are present on every variant of that mech. As such, if a quirk cannot be assigned to all versions of a machine, it is not listed.

When firing multiple shots in a single attack (i.e. “rapid-firing”), the attack is considered a Cluster weapon. It consumes ammo and creates heat for each shot fired; whether any hit is irrelevant.Change to:When firing multiple shots in a single attack (i.e. “rapid-firing”), the weapon consumes ammo and creates heat for each shot fired; whether any hit is irrelevant.

C3 Computer System (p. 110)Under “Indirect Fire”, replace the paragraph with the following:

Indirect Fire: A C3 network does not help when launching or spotting targets for indirect fire (see p. 30). Note that TAG (which conveys the benefits of spotting if it hits) does benefit, however.

LOCATION: BattleMech Quirk Table (p. 91)THE ERROR: The Goliath does not have Directional Torso Mount (RT) listed as a quirk, despite the description of that quirk beginning with "A well-known feature of the original Goliath".THE CORRECTION: Add Directional Torso Mount (RT) to the list of quirks for the Goliath.

Xotl: The quirk list only assigns quirks if every variant of that machine has it. All runs of the Goliath other than the original abandon the turret mechanism, so DTM is not applicable. Thanks.

Step 3 has no arrow for "No" for the diamond. If no decision needs to be made it should be a box not a diamond.Step 5 is an island. There is no way to reach Step 5 in the flow chart. Chart goes 4, 6, 7, etc. Box below step 4 should go to Step 5. Box below Step 5 should go to Step 6.

Xotl: corrected version of the page created and available for download at the official BT errata page. Thanks a ton for reporting this.

Unit (BMM pg#) - Anubis (pg 90) As Per BMM - Extended Torso Twist; Difficult To MaintainOther Source - XTRO Periphery (pg 3) ABS-3MC shows Prototype, Exposed Actuators, Extended Torso Twist Should the Chassis Difficult to Maintain extended to the 3MC, is the Exposed Actuators as result of the 3MC being a Prototype

Unit (BMM pg#) - BattleMasters (pg 90)Per BMM - Jettison-Capable Weapon (PPC)There are a few BLR variants that don't mount PPC but carry things in the right arm like Gauss Rifles, LRMs, ER Large Lasers should they considered be Jettison-Capable. Also some variants mount PPCs in Left and Right arms would both arms be considered Jettison-Capable.

Unit - Brigand (BMM pg 90)Per BMM - Modular Weapons, Nimble JumperOther Source - HTP- Tortuga (pg 23) - Easy to Maintain, Easy to Pilot. The HTP Tortuga units are newer than the original but they are based on the original chassis, so the difference in the quirks seems large.

Xotl: quirk list updated in errata post above. - Not sure about the Bushwacker at this time. - Units with EM Interference but no specific weapon are intended to cover the whole mech. - Hatchetman: -6M and -7R don't use right torso ballistic weapons; Fast Reload thus can't apply to all variants - Shadow Hawk: never considered that EWL could apply to energy weapons, but that's canon now per 1st SW (and there's no reason to prohibit it), so instead I'll just say that it's not an issue applicable to all variants

Hammer, the BMM beta had no torso twist. I asked about it as the IWM mini as well as the TRO cover art both show that the Bushwacker in fact does have a Torso. The problem is/was the TRO art inside the book looks completely different. As it looks like it was changed the errata will then need to be in SO. At least that is my take on what happened.

LOCATION: Piloting Skill Roll Table (p. 54, 139 PDF) - HipThe ERROR: Hip actuator hit can have more impact than just +2, as it can replace other modifiers. Needs a reference.The Correction: Add note 9, point to page p.48 (Hip)

Quoted text showing the need for this, key part in bold:

A critical hit to a ’Mech’s hip freezes the affected leg in a straightposition. The ’Mech’s Walking MP is cut in half. Recalculate its RunningMP accordingly by multiplying the new Walking MP by 1.5, rounding up.After a hip critical hit, ignore any other critical hit modifiers fromprevious turns on that leg (other leg critical hits this turn or later stillapply). This means it is possible for a ’Mech’s performance to improveafter a hip critical hit if it had suffered earlier critical hits to the sameleg: locked in a straight position, the leg serves as a sort of crutch,making movement easier in some cases than moving on a numberof free-flexing yet damaged actuators.

Damage Resolution Flow Chart (p. 42)There are several errors here. The all-text version of this on the previous page is correct; for correct visuals, download the refreshed copy of the page, available separately.

Two questions1) what is the URL for the download?2) why is the URL not in errata?

This is not the formal release of the v1.2 errata (it always gets posted here first to make sure there's no obvious errors I missed). When it's formally released, the only place you'll get 1.2 is on the BT errata page, which will also have the cited corrected page right next to it (and where that corrected page rests now). I figured you couldn't miss it.

EDIT: Since it's been two weeks since I posted the pre-release and no one has reported any errors, I've just uploaded the final to the official errata section on the website.

"If a 'Mech uses TAG against a target and misses, the 'Mech can still attempt to spot any target for indirect fire in the normal fashion."should be changed to:"If a 'Mech uses TAG against a target and misses, the 'Mech can still spot any target for indirect fire in the normal fashion.",as spotting without a TAG is automatic as long as the spotter has LOS to the target it declares to spot.

Pp. 36-37 - Death from above

Problem: The fourth paragraph under the Weapon Attack Phase section on p. 149TW / p. 53 Introductory Rulebook suggest, that only if the DFA is successful, the attacker takes the damage as described in the Damage to Attacker section on p. 150 TW / p. 54 Introductory Rulebook. BMM does not communicate this fact clearly.Solution: Change the description of the DFA rules on pp. 36 - 37 BMM to make it clear, that the DFA Damage to Attacker only applies if the attack is successful. The simplest way to do it would be probably to change the wording of the DFA Damage to Attacker section itself. For example you could change the beginning of this section from "To determine damage to attacker, divide[...]" to something like "In case of a successful DFA attack determine damage to attacker, dividing[...]". I would advise against fixing the problem in the same way as it was done in the TW/Intro Rulebook, as placing rules on who takes damage from a DFA in the Weapon Attack Phase section (as it is done in those books) can be confusing.

Edit: Perhaps a better way to fix the problem would be to pretty much much keep the wording from the TW/Intro Rulebook, but put it in the separate section, so it is clear, that those rules are meant for the Physical Attack Phase, not Weapon Attack Phase, so on p. 37 BMM between Weapon Attack Phase and the DFA Damage to Target section insert the following section:

"Physical Attack PhaseIf the DFA attack is successful, both BattleMechs take damage as determined bellow. If the attack fails, the attacking 'Mech crashes to the ground and takes damage (see Falls After DFA, at right)."

There should be more than enough space on p. 37 to add this bit.

P. 37, Second paragraph under Falls

Problem: In http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=55599.0 it has been determined, that a 'Mech that falls due to an unsuccessful DFA attack takes damage to it's back, but still rolls in Facing After Fall Table to determine it's final facing (see answers to questions 2 and 3 in the thread linked above), however the rules still don't reflect it.Suggestion: Change the paragraph to something like "On an unsuccessful attack, the attacker automatically falls taking damage as though the 'Mech had fallen 2 levels onto its back, regardless of the facing rolled in the Facing After Fall Table (see Falling, p. 56)".

P. 78 Battlefield Support Table

Problem: Copperhead ammo has a Target Number 8, but is supposed to seek it's targets like an Arrow IV round, Illumination/Smoke ammo has a double dagger in place of a target number, but their rules say nothing special about how to determine if those rounds hit. Those values/symbols are likely swapped.Solution: Change Copperhead Target Number to double dagger, change Illumination/Smoke Target Number to 8.

Pp. 86 and 90 - Bad Reputation quirk.

Problem: On p. 86 the description of Bad Reputation quirk mentions Battle Hawk as an example of a 'Mech that qualified for this quirk early on, but lost it later. On p. 90 in the BattleMech Quirk Table Battle Hawk has no expiration date for this quirk.Solution: Either add the date after which Bad Reputation quirk no longer applies to Battle Hawk, or change the example 'Mech on p. 86 to a one that has such date (like a Banshee).Problem 2: Bad Reputation quirk rules mention, that the clan MechWarriors piloting 'Mechs with bad reputation begin battle fought under Clan Honor rules with one dezgra point. As far as I know Clan Honor rules don't appear in the BMM book, only in TW.Solution 2: Add an appropriate page reference to the Clan Honor rules (the rules begin on p. 273 TW, dezgra points are explained in the "Declaring a Duel Void" section on p. 275), or at least an information, that Clan Honor rules are not covered in BMM.Problem 3: On p. 90 Blackjack has a Bad Reputation quirk assigned without an expiration date, but on p. 196 SO Blackjack is mentioned as a 'Mech with this quirk "during the Succession Wars".Solution 3: Add an expiration date to Blackjack's Bad Reputation quirk (probably at some point between 3022 and early 3050s judging from Blackjack's descriptions on p. 128 TRO 3039 and p. 46 TRO 3050 Upgrade). Alternatively you change the example 'Mech on p. 196 SO, but as said above it does look like Blackjack should lose the quirk at some point after 3022, so in this case my suggestion is to change the BMM, and not the SO.

P. 101 - Machine guns - Rapid-Fire Mode (Optional)

Lostech Streak Machine Guns?

Problem: I think it is clear that the intent of those rules is, that you are supposed to roll to determine ammunition consumption weather you hit or not, but according to the rules you use up "the number of rounds equal to damage it [the MG] inflicted x 3", so read literally they say, that if you miss your attack with an MG in Rapid-Fire Mode you consume no ammo.Solution: The rules should be reworded to match their apparent intent.

P. 108, Nemesis Pods

First bullet point - change to something like "the Nemesis-tagged 'Mech is in a hex lying along the LOS between the attacker and the original target, and", as there is no concept of LOS going thru units in Battletech - only thru hexes.

Change or add a clarification to the second bullet point to indicate that it is possible to redirect indirect fire even to a unit the attacker has no LOS to (using the rules for indirect LRM fire against Narc-ed targets with no spotter found on p. 104).

Problem: The rules on coolant pods fail to mention, that the pods are one-shot systems. This is likely because the rules in BMM are based on the rules section on p. 304 TO, while one-shot nature of coolant pods is mentioned in the fluff section on p. 303 TO.Solution: Add a note, that each coolant pod may be used only once per game. Clarify that a critical hit to a used coolant pod does not cause not internal explosion (per http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=59493).

Version 1.3 is out. Just a single page of fixes, being released not so much because they're essential as because I was putting out a TW release and I wanted the two books to line up. Now the Manual (with this errata), the upcoming fifth printing of TW, and the upcoming box sets should all be in line, ruleswise.

Light (p. 62)Problem: Under current errata you can't aim light at the same level, as the illuminating 'Mech is standing if it is not the ground level of the target hex.Suggestion: Change "[...]from 1 to 29 above or below the level the ’Mech is in (and within LOS)." to something like "from 0 to 29 above or below the level the ’Mech is in (and within LOS).", or just "up to 29 above or below the level the ’Mech is in (and within LOS)."

Dropping 'Mechs (p. 80)Problem: The errata fails to tell how to determine facing of a 'Mech that failed it's landing PSR, and scattered. Reading the answer in http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=59530.0 I was under impression, that you can choose 'Mech's facing after landing weather it was a successful landing or not and only then resolve the fall.Suggestion: In Failed Landings (p.80) add rules for determining landing 'Mech's facing before it falls. It will be obviously later randomised by the Facing After Fall Table (p. 57), but you still need the initial facing to determine possible combinations of final facings and hit location column used. Alternatively you can resolve it a little differently from standard falls - for example first randomly determine FINAL facing, and then roll in the Facing After Fall Table just to determine the hit location column. This way you avoid having to determine 'Mech's facing twice (once before, and once after the fall), and make it so that hit location column you use in this case is independent from final facing (which may be realistic if you assume, that a failed landing involves a random, uncontrolled spin around 'Mechs vertical axis).

Problem: The New Additions section of the document lacks an entry on Underwater Maneuvering Units (UMUs) (p. 117) present in the Full errata section.Solution: add the entry to the New Additions section.

Underwater Maneuvering Units (UMUs) (p. 117)Problem: The errata still does not bring BMM fully in line with TO.Suggestion: Make it clear, that an 'Mech can end it's UMU-powered movement above the bottom level, and that UMUs can be voluntarily disengaged only when 'Mech is at the bottom (possible involuntary cases of UMU disengagement are still being discussed - see http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=59726.msg1370791).

-------------------------------

By Xotl's request from the errata discussion thread I'm reposting my errata report that did not end up in latest errata document here, to make it easier to find:

P. 31, last sentence under TAG

"If a 'Mech uses TAG against a target and misses, the 'Mech can still attempt to spot any target for indirect fire in the normal fashion."should be changed to:"If a 'Mech uses TAG against a target and misses, the 'Mech can still spot any target for indirect fire in the normal fashion.",as spotting without a TAG is automatic as long as the spotter has LOS to the target it declares to spot.

Pp. 36-37 - Death from above

Problem: The fourth paragraph under the Weapon Attack Phase section on p. 149TW / p. 53 Introductory Rulebook suggest, that only if the DFA is successful, the attacker takes the damage as described in the Damage to Attacker section on p. 150 TW / p. 54 Introductory Rulebook. BMM does not communicate this fact clearly.Solution: Change the description of the DFA rules on pp. 36 - 37 BMM to make it clear, that the DFA Damage to Attacker only applies if the attack is successful. The simplest way to do it would be probably to change the wording of the DFA Damage to Attacker section itself. For example you could change the beginning of this section from "To determine damage to attacker, divide[...]" to something like "In case of a successful DFA attack determine damage to attacker, dividing[...]". I would advise against fixing the problem in the same way as it was done in the TW/Intro Rulebook, as placing rules on who takes damage from a DFA in the Weapon Attack Phase section (as it is done in those books) can be confusing.

Edit: Perhaps a better way to fix the problem would be to pretty much much keep the wording from the TW/Intro Rulebook, but put it in the separate section, so it is clear, that those rules are meant for the Physical Attack Phase, not Weapon Attack Phase, so on p. 37 BMM between Weapon Attack Phase and the DFA Damage to Target section insert the following section:

"Physical Attack PhaseIf the DFA attack is successful, both BattleMechs take damage as determined bellow. If the attack fails, the attacking 'Mech crashes to the ground and takes damage (see Falls After DFA, at right)."

There should be more than enough space on p. 37 to add this bit.

Pp. 86 and 90 - Bad Reputation quirk.

Problem:Note - the nature of the problem changed a bit with the recent errata to the BattleMech Quirk Table, which removed this quirk from Battle Hawk, hence my corrections in the report. On p. 86 the description of Bad Reputation quirk mentions Battle Hawk as an example of a 'Mech that qualified for this quirk early on, but lost it later. On p. 90 in the BattleMech Quirk Table Battle Hawk has no expiration date for this quirkdoes not have this quirk.Solution:Either add the date after which Bad Reputation quirk no longer applies to Battle Hawk, or Change the example 'Mech on p. 86 to a one that has this quirk limited by some end date (like a Banshee).Problem 2: Bad Reputation quirk rules mention, that the clan MechWarriors piloting 'Mechs with bad reputation begin battle fought under Clan Honor rules with one dezgra point. As far as I know Clan Honor rules don't appear in the BMM book, only in TW.Solution 2: Add an appropriate page reference to the Clan Honor rules (the rules begin on p. 273 TW, dezgra points are explained in the "Declaring a Duel Void" section on p. 275), or at least an information, that Clan Honor rules are not covered in BMM.Problem 3: On p. 90 Blackjack has a Bad Reputation quirk assigned without an expiration date, but on p. 196 SO Blackjack is mentioned as a 'Mech with this quirk "during the Succession Wars".Solution 3: Add an expiration date to Blackjack's Bad Reputation quirk (probably at some point between 3022 and early 3050s judging from Blackjack's descriptions on p. 128 TRO 3039 and p. 46 TRO 3050 Upgrade). Alternatively you change the example 'Mech on p. 196 SO, but as said above it does look like Blackjack should lose the quirk at some point after 3022, so in this case my suggestion is to change the BMM, and not the SO.

P. 108, Nemesis Pods

First bullet point - change to something like "the Nemesis-tagged 'Mech is in a hex lying along the LOS between the attacker and the original target, and", as there is no concept of LOS going thru units in Battletech - only thru hexes.

Change or add a clarification to the second bullet point to indicate that it is possible to redirect indirect fire even to a unit the attacker has no LOS to (using the rules for indirect LRM fire against Narc-ed targets with no spotter found on p. 104).

Problem: Ammunition Use Timing in the Shots section on p. 31 instruct to mark off ammunition as soon as the attack declaration is made. It can't be correct for streak missile launchers, which fire only in case of a successful attack roll (made some time after the attack declaration is made). In case of a failed roll no ammunition is fired, so at the moment of the attack declaration players don't know if the ammunition needs to be marked off.

Solution: Add a sentence to the Ammunition Use Timing paragraph explaining when expenditure of streak ammo should be marked on 'Mech Record Sheet. My guess is that it should be done as soon as a successful attack roll for a streak luncher is made.

---------------------------------

Edit: After posting the above errata I've realised, that there are some problems with the solution I've suggested above. I've explained them in the following rules question thread: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=60446.0 and will update this post when I get an answer there.